Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Shoplifting - not nice subject but...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6572 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

:oWas in Woolworths today and my mate who works there was having a bad day. A customer had come in a couple of days ago and bought a load of items for her children. One item, a skipping rope, was too short and she decided to bring it back in to get another one. Unbelievably, it was not listed on her receipt!!! :o

 

Looks like the sales assistant was going a bit too fast for the till to keep up and missed this item.

 

Spoke to assistant and the reply was " that if she had left the store the other day and had her bag searched by their store detective - she could have been done for shoplifting ":eek: :shock: :o - even though it was the shop assistant's fault!!!

 

Luckily for the customer, they changed it!

 

Dont ever suspect you have paid for all your items without checking the receipt first (lovely to get a freebie now and then) but the ending does not sound very nice - getting a record for shoplifting which you did not even do!!!! It does happen

Halifax - Since 2003 £1,186 DPA Request: 24.03.06

PRL - sent Recorded 05.04.06

Letter received 07.04.06 - Thanks but No thanks

LBA - 20.04.06 Refused Money Claim filed 08.05.06

Served 14.05 Acknowledged 16.05.06 - 28 days to go

:D WON - PAID IN FULL 25.05.06

Lloyds [/i]- Since 2000 £780.31 - DPA Request: 23.03.06

PRL - sent recorded 10.04.2006

Letter Rec'd 13.04 - Not interested

LBA - 13.04.06 Money Claim filed 25.04.06

Served 01.05.06 & Acknowledged 03.05.06. - 28 days to go

Defence received 25.05 - Here we go

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too much chance of this happening I feel.

 

Definition of theft as per Theft Act 1968:

"A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive them of it."

 

The shop would have to prove dishonesty. The Act doesn't say what "dishonest" is, but does give defences and examples of where honesty can be mistaken for something else.

 

 

ps This definition of theft is why the term Taking Without Owners Consent (TWOC) had to be invented. The original joyriders (circa 1960s) used to nick a car if they missed the last bus home. No intention to permanently deprive them of it, hence not theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

I used to be a manager in a shop, and you have to actually watch them take it and walk out without paying, its near impossible for an innocent person to get accused of this, even if they did, it would never stand up, and the Police would laugh about it after!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were searched on the way out, and this situation had arisen, it is likely that the security camera would prove the customer's innocence. Sad as it is, the security cameras are there to prevent theft by staff as much as theft by the non-paying public...:(

 

Sorry - I didn't finish - the 'staff' cameras tend to focus on the tills, and it is inconceivable that the 'unpaid for item' would not be recorded going into the bag...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiding a skipping rope in their pants?????? :D

If the name of the claim is blue and underlined, click it to see how I did it.

  • Halifax - 1st Request for £3748.80 sent 10/06 Settled in full and 5% donated


  • Goldfish - Unable to comment further, have a read


  • Lloyds - Data Protection Act sent 19/04 1st estimated request for £1500 sent15/08 LBA sent 08/09


  • Carphone Warehouse - Data Protection Act sent 19/04 Chased 04/07 ICO complaint 18/07


  • First National - 1st Request for £280 sent 05/05 Settled in full and 5% donated


  • Yes car credit - LBA sent 19/07 Court Action launched 26/09


  • HFC Bank - 1st Request for £100 sent 06/06 Settled in full and 5% donated


Like what I said? Hit the scales on the top right of my post. Cheers

 

Disclaimer - By giving advice, I am not putting myself across as a legal expert. Always seek professional advice.

Help the site, donate 5%, I have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only person who can search you is a Police Constable; unless you give your consent to another.

 

You do not have to let a security guard search you. If they want to arrest you thats their business, - but I can bet you most are not up to scratch on the new SOCPA powers in relation to arrests.

 

FP

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 10 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Halifax - Since 2003 £1,186 DPA Request: 24.03.06

PRL - sent Recorded 05.04.06

Letter received 07.04.06 - Thanks but No thanks

LBA - 20.04.06 Refused Money Claim filed 08.05.06

Served 14.05 Acknowledged 16.05.06 - 28 days to go

:D WON - PAID IN FULL 25.05.06

Lloyds [/i]- Since 2000 £780.31 - DPA Request: 23.03.06

PRL - sent recorded 10.04.2006

Letter Rec'd 13.04 - Not interested

LBA - 13.04.06 Money Claim filed 25.04.06

Served 01.05.06 & Acknowledged 03.05.06. - 28 days to go

Defence received 25.05 - Here we go

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6572 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...